14 CapitalPress.com
June 9, 2017
Oregon predator control funding clears key hurdle
USDA’s Wildlife
Services instructed
not to use cyanide
traps within state
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
SALEM — Nearly $1
million has been approved
for predator control by a key
group of Oregon lawmakers
despite Gov. Kate Brown’s
recommendation to cut the
funding.
Roughly $460,000 dedi-
cated to predator control is
included in the budget for the
Oregon Department of Agri-
culture’s next biennium that
was passed May 31 by the
Subcommittee on Natural Re-
sources of the Joint Commit-
Courtesy Elizabeth Orning/OSU
A collared cougar is seen in this file photo taken in the Mt. Emily
area of northeast Oregon. Approximately $900,000 has been
approved for predator control by a key group of Oregon lawmakers
despite Gov. Kate Brown’s recommendation to cut the funding.
tee on Ways and Means.
A matching amount is also
included in the Oregon De-
partment of Fish and Wildlife
budget, which has also won
a “do pass” recommendation
from the subcommittee.
While each budget must
still pass muster with the full
Joint Committee on Ways and
Means and be voted on by the
Legislature, the subcommit-
tee’s recommendation carries
a lot of weight.
The funding — approx-
imately $900,000 total —
would be directed to USDA’s
Wildlife Services division,
which kills predators that kill
livestock.
Earlier this year, Brown
recommended eliminating the
state’s contributions to Wild-
life Services to help reduce
Oregon’s $1.4 billion budget
shortfall projected for 2017-
2019.
County governments also
contribute money to Wildlife
Services, but Oregon ranchers
worried the loss of state fund-
ing would greatly diminish
the USDA’s predator control
efforts.
Wildlife
Services
is
viewed by ranchers as play-
ing a crucial role in mitigat-
ing livestock depredation, but
environmental groups accuse
the agency of indiscriminate-
ly killing wildlife instead of
using non-lethal methods.
As part of the ODA’s bud-
get, lawmakers included a
budget note saying the agency
should seek assurances that
Wildlife won’t use general
funds for cyanide traps, which
have been implicated in the
death of a wolf and a pet dog
recently.
Rep. Brad Witt, D-Clats-
kanie, said the cyanide traps
are “utterly inhumane” and he
was “overjoyed” by the rec-
ommendation.
“We have these things out
there, and we don’t know
where they are,” said Sen.
Lew Frederick, D-Portland.
However, Sen. Fred Gi-
rod, R-Stayton, and Rep. Rick
Lewis, R-Silverton, voted
against including the recom-
mendation.
Katie Fast, executive di-
rector of the Oregonians for
Food & Shelter agribusiness
group, said the subcommit-
tee’s decision to fund predator
control shows that livestock
industry representatives were
persuasive in their support for
the program.
“People made their case,”
she said.
The “do pass” recommen-
dation is important, but in this
year’s climate, nothing is final
until the legislative session is
done, Fast said.
Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Med-
ford, said he voted against the
ODA’s budget because law-
makers should first figure out
how to cover the $1.4 billion
shortfall.
It would be better to start
with a comprehensive plan
rather than approve individual
budgets in a piecemeal fash-
ion, Esquivel said. “You can’t
say we’re broke and then
up people’s general fund bud-
get.”
Complaints prompt state
to modify new insect fee
By TIM HEARDEN
Capital Press
Capital Press File
Cattle graze in this file photo. An Idaho judge has again delayed
the sentencing of a rancher in the theft of cattle he was caring for.
Judge again delays
sentencing in theft case
By CAROL RYAN DUMAS
Capital Press
JEROME, Idaho — Jason
David Anderson will have to
wait a little longer to know his
fate after Judge Eric Wildman
on Monday again delayed sen-
tencing him in a case of cattle
theft.
The second delay came
down to the judge’s focus on
full restitution for the victim,
the parties’ disagreement over
the amount of that restitution
and the lack of a payment plan.
Anderson pleaded guilty in
March to one count of grand
theft for branding calves as his
own and selling 99 head of cat-
tle belonging to Gary Marchi,
a California cattle producer.
Marchi, who started de-
veloping his beef-producing
shorthorn herd in the 1970s,
had sent the majority of his
herd to Anderson in Idaho in
June 2011 after losing all his
rental pasture in California
when the land was sold. He
had never met Anderson but
made his acquaintance through
another cattleman.
The criminal activity took
place between the fall of 2011
and January of 2015. In his
plea deal, Anderson agreed to
pay restitution to Marchi for
43 cows, 17 calves and one
bull he sold in 2012 and the
sale of 18 calves born in 2012
and 20 calves born in 2013.
He alleged the cows calved
out at about 50 percent.
By Marchi’s calculations,
Anderson owes him more
than $450,000, and that
doesn’t take into account
what the cattle were worth at
the time Anderson sold them
or the cattle he sold for which
there is no record, he said.
The prosecuting attorney
has also held the plea bargain
doesn’t account for all of the
animals Marchi lost or what
the value of the herd would
have been today — about
$902,500, said Deputy Pros-
ecutor Eileen McDevitt.
Being “more than fair” in
its valuation of the cattle An-
derson did admit to unlaw-
fully selling, the prosecuting
attorney’s office is asking for
restitution of about $236,000.
The defense, however,
argued fair-market value —
the price at which Anderson
sold the cattle — is closer to
$110,000. That calculation
includes 43 cows at $1,000
each, 55 calves at $1,200
each and a bull at $1,300.
At the three-hour restitu-
tion hearing on Monday, An-
derson’s attorney, Doug Nel-
son, first attempted to offset
the owed restitution, alleging
the victim owed Anderson
$213,000 for the upkeep of
his cattle. Nelson said the
“complaining witness” (vic-
tim) only paid about $30,000
of that and Anderson is owed
the difference and asked
Wildman if that could be ad-
dressed in the criminal case
or “do we have to go after
this guy in a separate civil
case.”
Wildman said statute
doesn’t allow for such offsets
in a criminal case and any al-
leged damages to Anderson
would have to be addressed
in a civil case.
Anderson testified that he
sold Marchi’s cattle “mostly
because I couldn’t make any
contact with him.” He said he
called Marchi repeatedly and
“the phone would just ring
and ring and ring.”
He said Marchi paid him
sporadically and he couldn’t
afford to continue to maintain
Marchi’s cattle because he
needed to maintain his own
cows or he’d lose everything.
He said he was at a “break-
ing point where I’d lose all of
mine.”
Anderson’s attorney ar-
gued, “He was either going
to have to let these cows die
or get something for them be-
cause of the position he was
put in by Mr. Marchi.”
Marchi previously said
Anderson never sent him a
bill, despite his requests, and
he paid Anderson regularly,
about $37,000 total. Copies of
checks provided by Marchi to
investigators show Anderson
continued to receive and cash
or deposit checks from Mar-
chi after the last of Marchi’s
cattle were sold.
“This is getting more ludi-
crous,” Marchi said from his
home in California.
Anderson is trying to
“weasel out of this,” and he’s
“grasping at straws,” he said.
“I just want what’s fair
coming to me, period,” he
said.
Wildman said the case in-
volves a large amount of resti-
tution and he views repayment
as a significant component of
the sentencing, whether that
sentence is probation — as re-
quested — or the length of the
probation.
He said he will issue a
written decision ahead of sen-
tencing, reminded the parties
that the court is not bound by
the plea arrangement and that
he wants to see a payment
schedule.
Sentencing is set for June
19 at 2:30 p.m. at the Jerome
County Judicial Annex build-
ing.
DAVIS, Calif. — A state
agency is dialing down a pro-
posed rule requiring costly
permits for collecting insects
for research after hearing com-
plaints from entomologists.
Lynn Kimsey, director of the
University of California-Davis
Bohart Museum of Entomol-
ogy, said a plan to charge up
to $75 per student or $400 per
team and require extensive pa-
perwork for each bug-collect-
ing expedition would “obstruct
the scientific work of research-
ers and teachers.”
In agriculture, the rule could
complicate UC Cooperative
Extension’s ability to identify
and study crop pests, although
growers would be able to col-
lect bugs without a permit,
Kimsey said.
“Certainly all the Coop-
erative Extension agents and
farm advisers are surveying
all the time, and growers are
doing the same thing,” she
said. “The growers would not
be doing it for research pur-
poses, but the Cooperative
Courtesy of UCANR
Students in Lynn Kimsey’s entomology class at the University of California-Davis go on an insect-col-
lecting expedition. Kimsey is criticizing proposed state rules that would require costly permits for
collecting insects for research.
Extension people might be.
We constantly have growers
coming to us saying, ‘Can you
study this and tell me how to
control it?’”
But the state Department
of Fish and Wildlife is taking
a second look at its proposal
and will likely require the per-
mits only for bugs on a “prior-
itized list” that would include
imperiled species or other
species the agency considers
sensitive, spokeswoman Jor-
dan Traverso said.
“We’re working on nar-
rowing down the specific in-
sects that are sensitive, which
should help with the prob-
lem,” she said.
The agency received over
100 letters during a recent
public comment period and
has decided to seek a second
round of public comments,
Traverso said. In any event, if
the purpose of the collection
is the study or control of agri-
cultural pests, no permit will be
required, she said.
Washington puts wolfpacks on shorter leash
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
Washington wildlife manag-
ers have issued a new wolf-con-
trol policy that calls for lethal re-
moval sooner, but with the hope
that quicker action will ultimate-
ly mean killing fewer wolves to
deter packs from attacking live-
stock.
The policy also commits the
state Department of Fish and
Wildlife to initially shooting one
or at most two wolves and paus-
ing to see how a pack responds.
In past cases, WDFW start-
ed with plans to shoot several
wolves.
“The goal is to interrupt
the behavior pattern earlier,”
WDFW wolf policy coordinator
Donny Martorello said. “If we
can do that by removing one or
two animals, good. If not, we can
take the next incremental step.”
WDFW’s use of lethal con-
trol has been a flashpoint since
wolves began returning to Wash-
ington a decade ago. WDFW
last summer shot seven wolves
preying on cattle in the Colville
National Forest in northeast
Washington. The action angered
environmentalists, but one ranch
still lost an estimated 70 cattle to
wolves.
The new policy reduces to
three from four the number of
depredations to trigger lethal re-
moval.
In another significant change,
one of the three strikes against
a pack can be a “probable”
depredation. Previously, only
“confirmed” kills were counted,
leaving out cases in which wild-
life investigators were fairly sure
wolves had killed livestock, but
too little of the carcass remained
to show wolf bites.
“Going to lethal earlier is
definitely the right way to go,”
said northeast Washington ranch-
er Arron Scotten, who regularly
attends meetings of the depart-
ment’s Wolf Advisory Group as
an observer. “I believe we made
progress when it comes to the
meat and potatoes of the proto-
col.”
WDFW’s policy applies to
only the eastern one-third of
Washington, where a large ma-
jority of the state’s 115 wolves
roam. Wolves are federally pro-
tected in the rest of the state and
aren’t subject to lethal control.
WDFW Director Jim Uns-
worth ultimately decides wheth-
er to resort to killing wolves. The
policy states he won’t consider
lethal removal until non-lethal
measures — such as range riders
and guard dogs — have proved
ineffective.
The environmental group
Conservation Northwest, which
is represented on the advisory
group, said in a statement that
the new policy balanced wolf
conservation with the interests
of rural communities in wolf
country.
Pacific Northwest canola association forming
By MATTHEW WEAVER
Capital Press
RICHLAND, Wash. —
Pacific Northwest canola
growers are forming a new
association that will repre-
sent them on the state and
local levels.
Farmers and industry rep-
resentatives met June 6 in
Richland, Wash., to discuss
the next steps in creating the
organization, such as setting
up a board of directors. The
organization, which will be
operational by the end of the
year, will serve growers in
Idaho, Montana, Oregon and
Washington.
Organizers are incorporat-
ing the association and fin-
ishing the bylaws, said Karen
Sowers, outreach specialist
for oilseeds with Washington
State University Extension.
The organization will also
hire an executive director.
The Washington Oilseeds
Commission collects assess-
ments, but can’t lobby in the
state legislature, Sowers said.
Matthew Weaver/Capital Press
Paul Walker, who grows canola
in Grant County, Wash., speaks
during a meeting to discuss
forming a Pacific Northwest
Canola Association June 6 in
Richland, Wash.
The new organization will be
able to lobby legislatures in
any of the four states.
Dale Thorenson, assistant
director of the U.S. Canola
Association in Washington,
D.C., said his organization
works with Congress and the
federal government on farm
and regulatory policies. The
regional association would
do that on the state and local
levels, he said.
Interest in canola is grow-
ing due to low wheat prices
and a saturated cover crop
market, said Anna Scharf,
a grower in the Willamette
Valley of Oregon. She is a
board member of the U.S.
Canola Association and
president of the Willamette
Valley Oilseed Producers
Association.
In Oregon, only 500 acres
can be grown in the valley
under state restrictions until
2019. Craig Parker, of Wil-
lamette Biomass Processors
in Rickreall, Ore., hopes the
new association would help
fight such restrictions.
“Valley growers really
need help in the legisla-
ture, and it’s an expensive
process, so being part of an
association would help,” he
said.
The valley is one of the
best places in the world to
raise the crop, which yields
nearly 5,000 pounds an acre,
Parker said.
In Washington, farmers av-
erage 1,500 to 3,000 pounds
per acre, he said.
Priced at 18 to 20 cents per
pound, canola is profitable for
farmers, Sowers said. It also
benefits other crops in a rota-
tion.
Paul Walker raises canola
in Grant County, Wash. Not
many farmers are trying the
crop in his area, and he said
more outreach is needed to
help them understand how
canola fits into their crop ro-
tations.
“I feel like I have seen dis-
ease pressures getting worse,
so we need to be looking into
crops to break up that,” he
said.
Dues for farmers would
be $75 per year, $25 of which
would go to the U.S. associ-
ation. Agency member dues
would be $100 per year. In-
dustry membership would be
$250 and up.
Sowers would like to see
100 farmers from across the
four states participate.
For additional information,
contact Sowers at ksowers@
wsu.edu and Scharf at Anna.
scharffarms@gmail.com